"Who is paying for that?"

Is a question we should probably all ask more often. 

The water supply in this group of units is "communal". In other words we all pay an equal amount per unit. It does not matter if there are one, two or more people living in the individual unit.

I am water conscious anyway and I can take very short showers. I can wash my hair under the shower faster than most people take a regular shower. I can do it because I have spent much of my life living in places where there has been very little water available.

There is no garden to speak of here. One or two people have pot plants and one person has a patch of "lawn" as opposed to the grass the rest of us deal with. No, she does not pay any extra for the extra water she uses to water her patch of lawn. I have not spoken to her about this and I doubt I ever will. 

Why? It probably is cowardice and a belief that it is better to get on with your neighbours, especially if you barely know them. I recognise her in context but would I recognise her in a crowd? It is unlikely. 

But what about our politicians and their expenses? Those expenses are in the news right now. Yes, I know we have a big land mass and that our federal government is a long distance from this state. It is considered "tough" on politicians to be away from their families when parliament is sitting. There are "perks" relating to their roles which allow them to see family at times other than when parliament is not sitting. These are seen as important, especially if they have young families. Yes, it is a complex issue.

But I do not believe that taking your family on holiday at taxpayer expense or flying your partner in for a sports match at taxpayer expense is right. Nor do I believe that "first class" everything is necessary on all trips. Even if it is essential for you is it also essential for your family?

I have been "wined and dined" so to speak by people who might be considered "VIPs". It is not something I have ever sought or wanted. The occasions have varied from lunch in the dining room of parliament house to a sandwich in a tiny private garden at the rear of a courthouse to a grand dinner at which we were all expected to dress in our best. I have had afternoon tea in a palace and breakfast in another one. 

All the occasions have produced useful results or useful contacts but the sandwich occasion was perhaps the most useful. What is more the sandwich did not go on any sort of expense account. I am sure it could have done but my host did not see that as necessary. We were simply there to do some work. 

There are undoubtedly occasions for "first class and fine dining" but I often wonder if there are times when a sandwich might produce more results.  

An extra three days of paid leave

can now be accessed by aboriginal staff at one of this country's major universities. It is to "help them cope with the perceived ongoing impacts of colonisation". The university introduced the new "colonial load" leave days to "recognise the 'unique' contributions of Indigenous staff" and said these staff members carry "an often invisible workload that is deeply impactful".

Aboriginal staff at that university already get an additional five days of paid leave not available to others. They can also take an additional ten days unpaid "ceremonial" leave without penalty so they can prepare for and attend cultural events. 

In order to do this staff only need to state they are "indigenous". There is no proof required.  

Apparently there are additional workplace pressures placed on indigenous staff and this helps to overcome those pressures. If that really is the case then perhaps the university in question is to be commended for the response.

There seems to be a belief that everything the university now does in all departments has to be done with "indigenous culture and heritage" in mind.  This is how "systemic change" is achieved "with recognition, respect and action".

But where does this stop? This is the same university which demands all students, no matter what they are studying, complete a unit which covers indigenous issues. That may also sound like a good thing but is it really?  Surely it depends on what that unit covers? Is it fair and balanced? 

The university is in a state which has just signed a "treaty" between indigenous people and the government on behalf of the other residents of the state. I watched some of the "indigenous" people being interviewed and heard their claims and their hopes for the future. Yet again I was left worried that I am "racist" because I could not see that everyone involved was "indigenous". I could not see how they could be so disadvantaged by events that may or may not have happened more than two hundred years ago. Their own ancestors on both sides of the issue must have been involved but it seems I am being asked to disregard this.

Is there something wrong with me or is there a whiff of a benefit in being some sort of "victim" here? 

 

Indigenous deaths in custody

 were a news item on our SBS news service last night. For those of you who do not live in Downunder I need to explain that SBS is a slightly different news service. It has a greater focus on international, multicultural and indigenous affairs. It partners with NITV - the National Indigenous Television network - and such news items are quite frequent.

This particular news item however bothered me. Any news item about deaths in custody bother me but I sensed something wrong with this one. I was right.

The item gave the very strong impression that indigenous deaths in custody far exceeded the rate of other deaths in custody.  There were the usual interviews with people who told us how wrong this was and how there needed to be more support services, especially mental health services, for indigenous people in custody. How the laws needed to be changed to prevent incarceration was also mentioned.

What was not mentioned was the fact that indigenous people are actually less likely to die in custody than non-indigenous people. Yes, the rate of death is too high because any preventable death in custody is too high. The rate of indigenous people in custody is too high too. 

I spoke to my friend M... He dealt with indigenous offending for most of his working life. Although now retired he keeps himself informed. Yes, he had heard the news item and, like me, did not like the impression it conveyed. He had also seen the latest statistics from the Institute of Criminology and sent them over to me.

Indigenous people make up almost forty percent of the prison population. They make up about thirty percent of deaths in custody. There were one hundred and thirteen deaths in custody last financial year. Of those thirty-three were indigenous deaths in custody. 

The number of people who identify as "indigenous" has been rising quite rapidly. Yes, there are advantages to identifying as indigenous. Yes, there are people who are abusing that. People who identify as indigenous or "aboriginal" or "islander" make up around four percent of the population. They should make up about that proportion of the prison population too but they are heavily over represented in it. The reason they are heavily over represented is because of the rate of offending. The rate of incarceration is high despite the fact that, by identifying as indigenous, people have access to special legal representation. There are different guidelines involved in their sentencing. There is even their own court system for many offences where "cultural" and other issues can be taken into account.  

With all that the rates of offending and incarceration are still higher. Activists keep telling us this is a "national crisis"  because of our colonial past and a lack of support services, including mental health services.  That an increasing number of repeat offenders are now being held on domestic violence and other violent crimes is, we are told, due to external failures and not a result of the actions of those in custody. We are being told they are victims too.

The news item gave this impression. It gave the impression that there are many more indigenous deaths in custody and that all these deaths might have been preventable. It again suggested there was a need for special consideration of this group of offenders and that more funding was needed to deal with the issues. 

Nowhere was it suggested that the behaviour of some of these offenders might be the issue. Nobody mentioned the harm some of them have done, harm not against the "white" community they claim is responsible but the harm done to their own community particularly their partners. 

All this makes it so much harder for indigenous youth who are trying to be law abiding and make something of themselves. I know one young indigenous man who has spent the past year working very hard. He will shortly get his Year 12 results and I hope he does well. He is not "brilliant" but he is intelligent. It has been a tough year for him. He has had to live away from his family to finish school. There has been a lot of pressure on him to "succeed". His immediate family are law abiding citizens but he knows this will not bring about personal success. 

We talked about the offending issues earlier this year. He was troubled by them and acknowledged some of the issues but he also told me, "It is up to us though. It doesn't have to be like that."  

 

I have done nothing about Christmas

apart from make Christmas cake. That was actually done a few weeks ago.

Yesterday my cousin shamed me by handing over a lovely Christmas card. (It was a winter one with a robin on it.) Cards? I will need to send electronic cards and an electronic letter. Sigh!

The time I had set aside for all these things has been taken up with things like sending the "bikies" off to Aceh with their updated communication board and spending a day at the Youth Court with the little idiot who lost his temper and did so much damage. Now I need to spend some time cleaning. (My little abode does not look too bad but I will feel more comfortable knowing I have cleaned it properly.) 

I am also awaiting more parcels. "Cat, you are mostly at home. Can I get the parcel delivered to you so the kids don't know?" Yes of course they "may" and I dutifully agree to be in so this can be done. I know how important Christmas surprises can be for small children.

I saw a former neighbour's eldest child in the shopping centre several days ago. She starts secondary school next year. "Cat! It's holidays next week!" was all she was interested in as she told me how they were heading off to the beach shack they have rented for most of the summer. I was reminded of how we looked forward to days at the beach as much as we looked forward to Christmas. Now I will be lucky to get to the beach at all. It is not just the algal bloom along the coast but finding a free day to get there.

If Middle Cat and I can go off to the hardware store before Christmas it will solve most problems. It is just a matter of both of us being free at the same time.  

Brother Cat is having ankle surgery today. While not looking forward to that he informed me, "At least it gets me out of all the Christmas fuss. I can get some reading done." He might. I hope he does. His "to be read" pile is not as high as mine but it is still in danger of falling over. Still, it does seem a rather drastic way of finding time to read. 

  

"Dot art" from the

desert is not "traditional" indigenous art. 

I had the difficult job of explaining this to someone yesterday. He very proudly showed me something he claimed was "aboriginal and done before white settlement". He paid a great deal of money for it. He has also been nicely conned.

"Aboriginal dot paintings" are now so widely believed to be traditional indigenous art it is unlikely most people will ever believe anything else. It is sold to tourists as being traditional. People are led to believe it has been tradition for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They are also led to believe that the patterns created are of special significance, that stories are being told and much more.

None of this is true. It is not true but people are still paying thousands of dollars for the paintings in the belief that these things are true. They are paying in the belief they are getting something more than an original art work.

Yes, some of those pieces are beautiful in their own way. It takes considerable skill and patience to do them. Those things need to be recognised. It also needs to be recognised that this is not a tradition which goes back thousands of years. There are no mysterious beliefs and stories attached to these works.

Their origin goes back to 1971 when a young teacher named Geoffrey Bardon went to work in Papunya, a small indigenous community in the desert. It is about three hours by road from Alice Springs. 

Bardon was interested in the way the elders told stories. They were drawing designs in the sand with their fingers and then wiping it over again. The designs were simple but Bardon realised they were illustrating the story. He set about getting the children at the school to paint a mural on the walls of the school. It was a success and he went on encouraging the children to draw in the same simple way. The elders began to do the same but they quickly realised the more permanent nature of these things meant they could not include some information, There were things those outside their own tribal group simply should not be told. Bardon was aware of that and he  encouraged them to put dots in the picture instead. 

This is where the "art" started. Pictures which consist entirely of dots, like the one I saw yesterday, are not "traditional". They do not tell a story and, even if they did, it would not be told to a "whitey". Many of the stories now told are not traditional either. They may sound as if they are and they may have their roots in traditional stories but the traditional stories are not there for the ears of those outside the group. 

What the person showing me the picture has bought is about a hundred years old.  If you like that sort of thing then it is a fine example of it. It is not however some hundreds of years old and, at almost $10,000 he has paid too much for it.  

The Most Travelled Government Funded

Frequent Flyer Award is apparently likely to go to the Ambassador for First Nations People. He is paid $400,000 a year for what seems to be a role which has, in two and a half years, required no less than forty-six overseas trips. In that time has been absent from the country for two hundred and sixty one days. The trips are funded in addition to that very handsome salary. That has come in at around $340,000. The Ambassador also has a staff of ten at a cost of $13m over four years. They also need to do some travelling. That has cost another $750,000 to date.

All this is apparently necessary to "progress Indigenous rights globally and help grow First Nations trade and investment". An Advanced Diploma of Business Management is apparently what qualifies the Ambassador to do this work.

There is also another fund he can dip into for others to attend meetings to "lift the participation of First Nations people in international meetings". That is a mere $1.25m. 

The article in this morning's paper was written by someone who is clearly not impressed by all this. The writer then goes on to talk about the expense sheets of the Energy Minister and the Communications Minister. We apparently do not need to be told about the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Their taxpayer funded absences are frequently mentioned in the media.

Then there is the "creative" mob - those who are supposed to provide grants to "artists, creatives and organisations, including large investments like the Creative Futures Fund (Development & Delivery streams), music-focused grants (Record Label Dev, Marketing & Mfg), international travel/market funds, and specific streams for First Nations artists". While you are at it toss in a tiny amount of support for deaf and disability projects.

I suppose all this has come about because there are no longer "lords of the manor" who fund the arts and see to it that those starting out in business gets some help when they first need it - to later be paid back via their taxes.  

The writer of the article then asks about Zoom meetings and more. I know a thing or two about Zoom meetings. No, they are not the same as face to face meetings but you can get a lot of work done - often at odd hours of the day. Even so there is a lot to be said for Zoom meetings. They are much cheaper to run - and there is no need to catch a plane. 

  

There was such a simple solution

to implementing the law banning under 16s from social media. All it would have taken was a ban on owning a phone which could access it. 

Yes, there are phones which allow you to do no more than make and receive calls, make and receive text messages and even get alerts or alert others for reasons of safety. Just as the government has provided many young people with other devices on which to do their schoolwork they could have seen to this. 

What if they had provided young people with bright yellow, lime green, orange or pink phones that could do only these things? It would have been easy to see if a young person was using a phone that only had the capacity for these things. 

Yes, there would be a cost involved but the cost of implementing the law would have been placed where it should have been placed. It would have been on parents and the government, on us as taxpayers. Those young people who already have phones could have been required to hand them until that magical sixteenth birthday and provided with the lesser device.

There is a growing belief that the new law is not simply about protecting young people from the harm of social media but about something more sinister than that. I have talked at length with two politicians who admit that the idea of being able to monitor everyone all the time would be very valuable if you want to remain in government. It would provide an excellent control mechanism if news could be filtered out or in on all electronic devices.

We already have a compliant media, indeed the major news sources are claiming credit for having the ban brought in. They are saying it is about "safety", as if lack of access to social media will prevent bullying. It won't of course. It may even cause greater harm to be done to some. It won't stop predators either. They will find other ways to ply their vile trade - as they have done for centuries.

The size of the fines if the "big tech" companies do not comply is perhaps the clearest indication that the law is about more than the safety of young people. This is about the government trying to wrest back control, about them being able to view everything we do. 

I have no time for the likes of Elon Musk but the fine the EU has imposed should be ringing alarm bells...particularly when they went ahead and tried to use the very system they were complaining about to their own advantage.